Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasper A. Vrugt

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Dennis - 2¢ 22:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper A. Vrugt

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although he has a quite long publication record, I think J. Vrugt is not (yet) a sufficiently notable person to appear in Wikipedia, being "just" an assistant professor at UC Irvine (USA). What if all people in academia with 80 papers would have their own wikipedia page? Lnz.Rossi (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. GScholar shows an h-index of 38, which would be well over what would be expected for WP:PROF#1 in most disciplines and (even though this is probably a relatively highly-cited discipline) probably adequate here - particularly when six of his papers (on all of which he seems to be the first-named author) have over 200 citations each. His fellowships of the American Geophysical Union and the Geological Society of America also both seem quite likely to meet WP:PROF#3, though I am willing to be corrected on this. PWilkinson (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PWilkinson. A clear pass of WP:PROF. The nom provides no valid deletion reasons, apparently arguing that assistant professors cannot be notable. -- 120.23.241.114 (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Well, my point is not so strong as "assistant professor cannot be notable", just saying that there are countless assistant (or even full) professors just as good out there, that just no one ever bothered to put in wikipedia; my naive rule of thumb would have been something like "academics are officially recognized as notable by their peers as soon as they become associate (or even full) professors, and wikipedia should stick to this evaluation". Another point that perhaps I should have mentioned at the time of nomination is that in my opinion the style of the entry is at times "celebratory" ("his creative idea ... perhaps the most elegant way of exploiting the strengths of individual search methods", "He was enjoyed by his students for his humor, informative course, and engaging lectures") and at times trivial (like the fact the he taught a course on Matlab which, as far as it's reported here, looks just like an undergrad introductory course on Numerical Analysis), or not relevant (a picture of him playing softball). However, I am a new wikipedia contributor and honestly I was not aware of the criteria in WP:PROF; I agree that criterion #1 seems fulfilled. Maybe polishing the text would be enough? Lnz.Rossi (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways, your nomination was justified: while we generally do keep articles on academics who have not only published a lot of papers but have, far more importantly, had a number of them cited by quite a lot of other academics or have been awarded honours (like his fellowships) that the great majority of academics could never expect to get, the article itself is definitely too celebratory and is sourced far too much to the subject himself. And while the article should indeed say what he is notable for, we don't need details that would only be of interest to his students and close colleagues. I will cut the article back a bit myself, but feel free to take out anything else that looks as if it shouldn't be there and isn't sourced to what we regard as reliable sources. PWilkinson (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is something wrong here. With that extensive of a publication record and awards, there is no way he would already be a professor in the UC system. I need to see some reliable independent sources on this one. I am One of Many (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cannot understand the "no way" comment above: the publication record and the position are both documented by reliable sources. What it basically amounts to, is that he has published a great deal very early. It is extremely rare for US universities to let people jump over the successive steps in the hierarchy. Universities are, after all, notorious for stogy administrative customs. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to a certain extent. He received his Ph D in 2004, did postdoctoral work and was hired in 2010, probably at step III or IV, which means in the UC system he should have gone up for promotion in 2013 under normal progress. I'm just puzzled by that. His record looks very promising. The article was created in 2010 and wasn't notable then. I just don't see enough for WP:PROF now. I think he will be notable, so I could support userfying the article back into the SPA that created it. I am One of Many (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to pass WP:NACADEMICS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.